Re: ingress filtering and multiple Internet conenctions

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 25, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:

Joe Greco wrote:

There's a problem: I can validly emit a variety of other addresses, in particular any address in 206.55.64.0/20 and some other networks. I am not "forging" packets if I emit 206.55.64.0/20-sourced addresses down a

Comcast pipe.
How many people realistically have this problem?  Well, potentially,

machine; because of BCP38 (and other security policy) it is common
for a VPN setup to forward Internet-bound traffic back to the VPN

reasonably argue that this is undesirable.

lots. Anyone who uses a VPN could have a legitimate IP address on their server rather than directly out the Internet. In some cases, one could

I would like to take the opportunity to urge vendors of routers and firewalls to take extra special care and attention to make sure that The Right Thing can always happen whenever multiple egress services are employed. This means that policy routing for network AND ALL locally generated traffic should be available and work as the operator intends it to.

This includes the ability to turn OFF stateful inspection in all cases if desired, and, full ability to

support asymmetrical (or Triangle) routing in cases where it is desired.

Also, not breaking PMTU-D would be good.

Right now things still suck pretty hard, depending on what you are using.

Indeed.

Owen

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature